TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

So, you think the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent an accident? Say you're standing on top of a building across from another building where construction is taking place, and you see someone about to move a load in way that from your vantage point you are certain will result in the load dropping on and killing people standing in a group down below: you call out, but with all the noise over there he can't hear you, and neither can the people down below --you think you can use deadly force to stop the guy from moving the load?

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

GreezyG wrote:Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

Again, how can you KNOW that he had a stroke? You can't. All you know is that he is trying to run you over with his truck and according to 9.32 you are justified. What you have to be sure of is that there was no other escape route.

I think maybe we seem to be disagreeing because you're looking at this more narrowly than I am. You're describing a situation where you're certain there is no escape and shooting someone is the only recourse. My problem is I just can't imagine a plausible scenario that fits those conditions, except maybe being trapped in an alley. And even then I think the situation is different if you're on foot or in a vehicle.

Fangs wrote:IANAL... and I'm glad some of you guys aren't either.

Important parts marked:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

If someone's exhibiting all the signs of trying to crush me while they're driving a huge truck and I don't reasonably believe that I can escape without putting myself and my passengers at risk, then yes, I'm going to shoot them. I've had people try to run me off the road before and I've had friends who've died from car wrecks. If someone's medically incapable of driving then they should... hmm... NOT DRIVE.

That having been said, nothing good happens on the east side of I-35 in Austin.

I think you're missing a couple of key points:

1) the standard isn't what you reasonably believe, it's what a "reasonable person" believes. A given individual may not be a "reasonable person." The court will weigh some construct of what a reasonable person believes.

2) the statue says "to protect against the other's use ....of unlawful deadly force."

I don't think a driver suffering a heart attack or a stroke and running into you is the use of unlawful deadly force.

3) if the person is "medically incapable of driving" it might work in your favor, since he would be driving illegally, but strokes and heart attacks and other medical problems can come out of the blue --and it would still be an accident, since the driver didn't intend to have a stroke, or lose control of his vehicle, even if he was somehow medically incapable.

4) you can't tell when you shoot whether the driver is trying to murder you; you're making an assumption that contains a huge amount of uncertainty.

Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

GreezyG wrote:If one believes that someone is trying to run them over then you should be in reasonable fear for life and limb. Any car can kill you. Honestly, I have the utmost sympathy for the disabled, my parents were social workers their whole careers. But if my life is threatened I will protect it. I'm not going to stop and evaluate the mental condition of the possible BG.

That standard might get you into serious trouble some day. The legal standard isn't what you believe, it is what the mythical "reasonable person" believes. Also, the thread hasn't been about someone trying to "run you over" while you're walking along the side walk or crossing the street --that's a different scenario. It has been about someone about to collide with you while you are in another vehicle.

However, take the pedestrian scenario....you're walking down the street, a vehicle is about to run into you, and to you it looks like on purpose. How do you justify shooting at that vehicle? You going to stand there, pull your gun, and shoot? How you going to sell that to a jury over just running out of the way? Or are you going to run out of the way shooting? Run out of the way and shoot from cover? Without even considering the possibility that the driver just had a stroke and isn't trying to run you over or there are children in the vehicle, how are you going to justify that to a jury?

Since you won't know the driver's intentions or condition until after you've shot, to justify your use of deadly force you're going to have to say it doesn't matter. To buy that the jury has to accept the legal theory that you can use deadly force against people with medical problems to prevent accidents. I don't know what the odds are of such an event being attempted murder versus an accident, but let's say they're 90% in favor of attempted murder. You think you're going to convince a jury that since there was a 90% chance the driver was deliberately trying to run you over you were justified in shooting at a vehicle that may have been driven by someone who had a heart attack and was occupied by children and that could veer off and kill some other innocent bystander (or kill an innocent an bystander by a ricochet or stray bullet?)

Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

Justin CHL wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:
Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the or ther car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

And how are you to know if they are really trying to hurt you or if they have a disorder? You aren't supposed to know nor is there any way that you can know. All you know is the facts...someone is trying to hit you with a MOVING VEHICLE.

Getting hit by a moving vehicle has been proven to be detrimental to your health.

At the point that you are threatened with being hit with a moving vehicle and you have no other way out...regardless of the mental state of the individual behind the wheel...one should think that you are in fear for your life and you are justified in using not only but force but deadly force. Especially since they are threatining you with deadly force.

You might want to reconsider what you're saying.....which appears to suggest you believe you can shoot at a vehicle that "looks like" it is going to hit you. I'm pretty certain if you do that you're going to go to prison. It seems to me you'd need to demonstrate at least two things in court to stay out of prison: 1) that it is reasonable to shoot people who lose control of their vehicles, are afflicted by strokes, or heart attacks....whatever....since you said you'd shoot without knowing why another vehicle is about to hit you; and 2) that it is reasonable to believe that shooting at a vehicle about to collide with you is likely to stop such a collision (and I'd maintain that in most circumstances, it isn't, and in fact, hitting the driver might cause a collision that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, since you've already admitted you don't know anything about the intentions of the driver).

To make #1 fly, you're also going to have to convince a jury that it is reasonable to risk killing other occupants of the vehicle, like children, when a driver loses control, say, due to a stroke or heart attack, and it looks like his vehicle may collide with yours. And it won't matter whether or not there are actually children in the vehicle because the prosecution will introduce that possiblity given your argument that the intentions of the driver are not a factor in your decision to shoot. It's just my opinion of course, but I don't think you're going to find a jury that will accept your line of reasoning.

Justin CHL wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:
Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the other car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

A very similar situation to what happened across the street from where I used to live. I can think of a lot of different explanations for the scenario described that do not justify the use of force, much less deadly force. I think if you shoot someone who you merely "believe" is trying to run into your with their vehicle you're going to prison. And this is without even considering the possiblity that there are other occupants of the vehicle you can't see, like children. Shoot a child in that scenario and your life is over.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I didn't see even a hint he was suggesting he would have used a gun; only that he wished he had had it if the need had arisen.
Chas.

Really, not even a hint? He said: "I was thankful he didn't hit us but then I noticed he was turning around, I did not know his intentions. The first thing I thought was crap I don't have a gun on me."

I don't know, but just going by the description, at this point NOTHING has happened, except someone drove by his car too close, perhaps recklessly, and he's expressing concern about the intentions of the driver turning around, and his FIRST THOUGHT is "crap I don't have a gun on me." Yes, you can read that as "crap, I don't have a gun on me, what if this guy does ABC? --but in that particular situation, what's the ABC where using a gun is the appropriate response instead of just driving off?

If I had to guess, I'd guess in favor of the OP being prepared and alert to the unexpected, and concerned about being able to defend himself, as in your response. But I can also see how his remark can be read another way, which is why I asked the question. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just curious about his thinking at that moment. The clear cut situations that justify the use of deadly force we don't have to worry about so much, it's the ambiguous situations that will more likely get us into trouble, and it is those scenarios that I think are most interesting and valuable to explore.

Are you suggesting you'd have shot at this other vehicle if you'd had a gun? Say the truck turned around and came at your vehicle again, would you have shot at it under the assumption that the driver was deliberately trying to run into you?

That might not turn out too well for you, especially since you were apparently in a vehicle yourself, not on foot. How many times have you read about people with medical problems losing control of a vehicle? We had a guy just drive off the road right across from our house a few years ago. It sure looked intentional --but it turned out the guy had a stroke.

Maybe the guy was changing CD's, came too close to your vehicle, and then decided he was going the wrong direction, so he turns around and it looks like he's coming back at you, when the reality is something quite innocent. What if the guy was drunk? By both the letter and practical application of the law, I don't think you can use deadly force on drunk drivers.

Maybe you're just talking about a scenario where the other vehicle comes back at you, stops, and the occupants come after you, but it seems like your best legal recourse is going to be to drive away. Again, might be different if you were on foot, but it sounds like you were in a vehicle.

I'm curious about what kind of scenario you see playing out under those circumstances that would justify the use of deadly force?